Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-25 Single-party state

Mediation Case: 2006-11-25 Single-party state
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Regebro 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Single-party_state


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Regebro, User:Huaiwei, User:Instantnood, User:Vsion


 * What's going on?
 * User:Huaiwei and User:Vsion refuses to acknowledge the fact that Singapore in practice is rules by a single party which can not be removed from power by peaceful means. They therefore keep removing it from a list of de facto single party states, even though it clearly fits the description acording to all neutral and reliable sources (which I have given them).


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like to get them to stop reverting the page.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No preference.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion

 * Noting as a neutral mediator (yes, I'm Singaporean, but this has no bearing on my comments that follow) that calling Huaiwei's and Vsion's contributions vandalism violates WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Please don't do so, or you may find yourself blocked. – Chacor 09:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is reverting OK? --Regebro 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's better, thanks. :) – Chacor 10:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Will the requestor please give me a link to why you think they are controlled by a one-party system? Wiki e Zach|  talk  12:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure: The Single-party state article divides Single-party states into two groups, one that by law forbids other parties, and one "de facto" group. I quote: In most cases, parties other than the one in power are banned, although some systems guarantee a majority for one favored party that ensures the impotence of any parties relegated by law or practice (including rigged elections) to a permanent status as a miniscule and impotent minority.

According to ALL independant sources on Singapores political system, Singapores ruling party is indeed using undemocratc practices such as jailing opponents, suing them into bancruptcy, controlling media with heavy censorship and even banning private meetings to guarantee a majority for themselves. Sources for this is, amongst others: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6829 http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sgp-summary-eng http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17360&Valider=OK Freedomhouse sais, for example "Citizens of Singapore cannot change their government democratically." Thusly, the description in the article of a de-facto Single-party state fits Singapore perfectly. --Regebro 13:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems simple enough, where does the objectors say there is a problem with that definition? Wiki  e Zach|  talk  13:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think they say it's a problem with that definition. They just want claim that Singapore is a democracy, as far as I can understand. --Regebro 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Amnesty International's report proves it, there seems to be not one shadow of a doubt that remains there. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I think to, obviously. Whendiscussing politics I quite often encounter people who seem to deny something obvious. I don't know if it's me that's daft or them, but in any case I don't know how to handle it. Hence the mediation request. :) Thanks for the help, it would be great if somebody else could check it out and see what they think. --Regebro 00:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope Wikizach doesn't mind if I intrude a bit here... Amnesty is not all there is. Right now it's the equivalent of just taking one side's word against the other (the Singaporean Government's). I don't believe that our opposition parties (except the Singapore Democratic Party) have recently (past 10 years?) accepted that we're a one-party state; indeed many opposition parties made gains in vote percentages (even though they fell short). To just take the word of AI, RSF etc. would be POV. – Chacor 01:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this comment. To dismiss the consensus of all independant human rights organisations as being POV is in itself hard to accept, and your suggestion that Singapores governments opinion of itself should have equal say as the independant and unbiased views is impossible to understand. It's like claiming that a court of laws decision is only a POV and that the accused should be able to decide his own verdict. It doesn't make any sense. I understand that you are trying to look at this objectively despite you being from Singapore, but I have to say that sadly I'm suspecting that perhaps you aren't succeeding. ;-)
 * I will at this point wait a couple of days to see if I get any comments from people who are not inherently biased on the suggestion prompted by enochlau to see if this can be alliviated by clarification and reorganising of the articles. If I get no comments, I will have to revert the Singaporeans edits, as they in that case are clearly mistaken. If they continue with the editwar, I'll go for arbitration, as you suggested. --Regebro 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that Arbcom would hear this case only if we try Medcom first. They like prior mediation. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you please provide a link that other parties one some seats in their government? Wiki e Zach|  talk  04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

General comment as uninvolved mediator interested in outcome: See related arbitration cases: Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3, Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2. It may be appropriate to go straight to ArbCom should mediation fail. – Chacor 10:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * May I know in what way the arbitration cases are related? Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines the issue as, "A single-party state or one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election". Do we all agree that no other parties are permitted to run? Wiki e Zach|  talk  14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, the current Parliament has opposition members. Four parties were involved in this year's elections. – Chacor 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they are being permitted to run, they are just bing prevented from actually gaining any power by undemocratic means, mostly strict media control, strict controls on why may run, and by bogus lawsuits bancrupting the opposition. Thus, they are a de jure multi-party state, but a de facto single-party state. The article in question makes this distinction and Singapore was listed in the correct place. --Regebro 14:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there is certainly more here than I had thought. The question to ask is are all parties ready to proceed to further mediation first? Because: While they are permitted to run, the main party uses 'evil' means of getting rid of them. But then Chacor says that to read the definition. I agree with both, and I am ready to sumbit this to Medcom and follow this further. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  14:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree that more formal mediation through MedCom is needed, rather than MedCab. This has far-reaching effects, and the prior arb cases suggest that there is more to it than MedCab is suited to handle. – Chacor 15:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)